From: "Hal E. Fulton" <hal9000@...>
Date: 2001-10-09T13:12:32+09:00
Subject: [ruby-talk:22279] Re: This is not wanted. BRITNEY SPEARSNAKED----WOW!!!!!!

----- Original Message -----
From: David Alan Black <dblack@candle.superlink.net>
To: ruby-talk ML <ruby-talk@ruby-lang.org>
Sent: Monday, October 08, 2001 9:55 PM
Subject: [ruby-talk:22276] Re: This is not wanted. BRITNEY
SPEARSNAKED----WOW!!!!!!


> Hello --
>
> On Tue, 9 Oct 2001, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > In message "[ruby-talk:22248] Re: This is not wanted. BRITNEY SPEARS
NAKED----WOW!!!!!!"
> >     on 01/10/09, David Alan Black <dblack@candle.superlink.net> writes:
> >
> > |Re: "Ruby" as anti-stop word:
> > |
> > |I dunno.  Searching for it on www.ruby-talk.org:
> >
> > I disagree.  Many posts including mine do not include the word "Ruby"
> > in them, but still useful.  I hate spams, but I hate to change my life
> > for spams more (if spams stays this much in comp.lang.ruby).
>
> Yes, that's what I meant: there are only 15292 (or whatever it was)
> matches for "Ruby", but there are 22249 messages altogether, so "Ruby"
> is not a good anti-stop word.

Actually, what I was proposing (which is likely still
a bad idea) was that if someone posted something
with an obvious filter-word like "naked," the poster
could deliberately bypass the filter by using the
word "ruby" somewhere.

But that does require a conscious effort on the part
of the poster and also implies a knowledge of the
filter. So probably a dumb idea.

Hal